Drop the Bunn...errr...Teddy!

As much as I like to discredit all religion equally, it’s kinda hard not to give a leg up to the Muslims. Take this weeks fiasco in Sudan, where a British school teacher was jailed for allowing a child to name a teddy bear Mohammed. Now you have sword wielding protesters in the streets screaming that she be executed for defaming the god. Granted she didn’t actually name the stuffed toy, a child did. But since she allowed it to go through (aren’t a lot of Muslims named Mohammed as well?) she was charged with insulting religion (convicted), inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs (cleared on both). I know all Muslims aren’t like this, and anyone with a functioning brain should look at this and just shake their head in shame, but WTF??? It seems to have gotten to the point where you can’t even mention the “M word” without immediately following it with gold plated praise. If you thought the Danish cartoon fiasco was absurd, this is just outright ludicrous. The wack job fundamentalists who take to the streets over things like this, really do give Muslims a bad name, which is a shame. Because the last thing they need right now is another reason for the Western Islamaphobes to say “See? I told you so.” Let’s just hope cooler heads prevail. Because if a teddy bear can cause an international incident, I hope no one finds out what my friend calls his ‘johnson.’

Instead of making this into a new post, I've decided to add on to this, as it covers similiar ground. While not even close to what's going on in Sudam, I am very disheartened by the Catholic League's called for boycott over "The Golden Compass" film, which they says promotes athiest ideas. And my question to them is, so what if it does? Isn't the idea of different points of view something to be welcomed? Won't it lead to better, more indepth and informed discussions? This sickens me, as we live in a society where the phrase "corporate monopoly" might as well be a four letter word, but we somehow think it's OK to have just one option when it comes to religion. By the Catholic Leagues standards, any questioning of the Bible should not be tolerated, ever, and even though they're not brandishing swords over it, they're still waging war. Were there any athiest protests over the film adaption of the "Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe?" Were non-believers out picketing "The Passion of the Christ?" Not that i can remember, though I do remember a small fraction of people getting into a huss about Harry Potter and how it promotes witchcraft. It's funny to me how these religions preach tolerence, unless you don't beleive what they do (and god help you if you don't beleive anything at all!). Can't we all just get along?

Jesus hates Angelina Jolie

Just when I thought I would have nothing entertaining to write about, this comes along. Let's get something out of the way right off the bat. I originally had no interest whatsoever in seeing Beowulf. I'm just sick of the whole over the top CG action fests that have been all of the rage the last few years. But after reading this, after hearing someone call a movie "quite probably the most heinous culprit for stealing childhood from children ever made," it becomes a necessity that I go see it.

While the film's been earning decent reviews overall (70% on Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing), it really took a nut case like this to get me into a theater. I know he's evaluating the film on "Christian principles," but can it really be THAT heathenistic? I've read the poem and it wasn't any worse than the majority of what you'd read in the sci-fi/fantasy genres nowadays. So without seeing the film yet, I've decided to prematurely label this guy as a fucking moron, using the following points to back me up:

"It might even be equivalent to NC-17 but I cannor tell you that since we have not and will not analyze any NC-17 (or X) films"... I decided to keep the typo in there, but WOW, Hollywood must be getting real lax these days, allowing an NC-17 film to slip by as PG-13! Not to mention he's comparing it to films that he hasn't even seen, so he has no frame of reference. NICE. Angelina must have slept with a few of the test screeners to pull this one off. My guess is that Jesus is crying over this.

"I will not argue the nudity in this film. That the filmmakers used what looked like metallic plating over portions of the nude witch does not excuse the nudity."... damn those filmmakers for covering up the naughty bits with metallic painting! Dear reviewer, have you ever seen a naked person before? The last time I checked, if it's covered up, be it with metal cgi effects, or, say, clothing, it ain't nudity. But that just might be my inner evil, secular East coast liberal coming out again.

"I have read lots of poems but never have I seen nudity in a poem."...I think I just LOL'd.

At this point he goes into a study on how teens can't separate fiction from reality and this is going to make them all vote for Hilary or some shit. At this point I gave up. I scrolled down a bit and saw him starting to quote Bible passages, as if that would save him from the horrors he has just seen. In the end he gave the film a final rating of 7/100. Which was 5 points lower than Natural Born Killers. Just saying.

Oh, and what's with all these hardcore faith based sites looking like they were designed by a high school kid back in 1990? Does god not bestow the gift of decent design upon his most devout?

Drama Queens

As much as I sympathize with the striking WGA members, if you live in New York, who needs ‘em? When the sports page is filled with more drama than all of your favorites shows combined, it takes the sting out of the fact that we now have no excuse to not be productive with our free time. A-Rod interrupting the World Series in order to say that, on second thought, a quarter of a billion dollars just isn’t worth it? The Isiah Thomas sexual harassment trial? And now Stephon Marbury basically just saying "I quit, deal with it?" This stuff is pure gold.

In case you don’t know what went down, here’s the supposed back story: Isiah, in trying to do something to turn around his train wreck of a team, decided to bench Marbury. Thinking he’s god’s gift to whatever the Knicks do, Marbury didn’t show for a game in Phoenix last night. Odds are he’s not showing again tonight in L.A. And just how could he get away with this? Rumor has It that he says he has some serious “shit” on Mr. Thomas that would make what happened during his recent sexual harassment trial look like kiddie stuff.

One can only speculate as to what these other things are. We all know that Isiah isn’t capable of running a McDonalds, let alone an NBA team, though as long as Jim Dolan decides that winning 56 games in 2 years is enough improvement to keep him around, he’s not going anywhere. Pay no mind that 56 wins is an off year for the Dallas and Phoenix’s of the league, so the bar has been set incredibly low. Whatever Stephan has on Tohomas, or claims he has, has got to be juicy. It’s got to be enough to make him say, “you know what, you’re better off staying home than coming off the bench.” And it must be better than Marbury giving it to an intern in a pickup truck. This is pure speculation at this point, but I t bet it involves farm animals and the South Pacific sex trade. Because at this point, it’s going to take something of that magnitude for Dolan to grow the balls to put an end to Isiah’s tenure as coach/owner/colossal fuck up.

So what if the writers are on strike a few more weeks when we have the constant soap opera that is New York City? I don’t know what will come of this, but with the cast of clowns involved, it’s not likely to disappoint. Grab the popcorn, this is gonna get good.

Rob Sheffield isn't funny

Rolling Stone is all sorts of fail. I don’t know when it happened, but sometime over the past few years, Rolling Stone went from being relevant, to just sort of there, to finally taking the death plunge into obscurity for today’s music fans.* But to their credit, they did see this death gasp coming and tried to do something about it. They tried going the snarky hipster route for a while, having Rob Sheffield spout off about celebrities and “pop” culture every month. Except none of it was very funny. “40 things he hates more than Paris Hilton?” Railing on Blowhan? Too easy, not to mention that every other celebrity blogger in existence does the same thing. Besides high school girls (and yes, that includes people with the mentality of high schoolers), who really cares what’s going on with these people? They like to party and make shitty movies. Nothing to see here people, move along. A major reason for Rolling Stone’s downfall is that is has lost track of its target audience.

For as long as I can remember, RS has had a Viagra educed hard on about it’s glory days, when it was indeed a cultural force and helped define what cool was. But since that time has passed, the magazine has had a hard time finding it’s voice. It still longs for the nostalgia of days old, which is evident anytime you open up one of their commemorative issues, where it’s a who’s-who list of Jann’s celebrity friends. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if they were getting contemporary music right. They just don’t get it. But they think they do. While they’re putting Kid Rock on the cover of their Hot issue (was he ever relavent?), the kids are running over to places such as Pitchfork to find out about artists that actually matter. I get it though, to an extent. Who’s going to sell more magazines, Kid Rock and a bunch of half naked women, or Of Montreal? Maroon 5 or the Roots? Rolling Stone is a business and do what they need to do to make money. Unfortunately that means giving us interviews with Perez Hilton instead of, I don’t know, anyone else on the fucking planet (seriously, my 16 year old brother is more significant than that quack). But while trying to appeal to today’s fans, they’re actually doing two things. First, they’re driving away the real young music fans who will go and seek out great new music and art in exciting and unexpected new places. Which, ironically, is how Rolling Stone built it’=s name to begin with, by providing a place to find the cool new music of the time. Secondly, they’re driving away their original readers as well. These guys see through the bullshit just as much as we do, and you can only praise the Beatles so much before you just get sick of the other 95% of the content and move on. And when you alienate the young hip crowd and the original (now older) hip crowd, what does that leave you with? Tweens. And morons. I guess that’s what happens when you get in bed with MTV.

This all leads up to the fact that they’ve just lost touch. I still laugh every time I read a review of a rap record in that magazine. Sure, crap is crap, whatever genre it is, and those they get right. But 50 Cent vs Kanye, for the title of the greatest emcee at the moment? As much as I enjoy Kanye’s music, it doesn’t exactly take a discerning listener to realize that his flow isn’t exactly up to par and that his rhymes are very hit and miss. I’d like to see either one of them try to keep up with guys like Aesop Rock or MF Doom. Can you see Ye keeping up with Blockhead’s beat on “None Shall Pass?” And I know I’m not the only one who’s noticed their influx of “safe” reviews. You know, when a big star puts out a mediocre to sub par record, you can count on it getting 3 stars, which they label as “good.” Don’t want to piss them off, or they might not agree to do a cover shoot! Whatever happened to being honest? If a record blows, and I don’t care if Jesus TF Christ himself put it out, you should call it out. Don’t be afraid of the wrath of artists with pull, if they put out crap, odds are they’ll eventually admit it.

This is not to say that Rolling Stone is all bad. There are glimmers of hope still shimmering within its pages. Peter Travers remains the most reliable film critic in the business, and is spot on with his observations more often than not. New political correspondent Matt Taibbi has become the sole reason for me not canceling my subscription. He cuts through the political bullshit with an “are you fucking kidding me?” sense of humor and perspective that’s very refreshing. Unlike others who write for the rag (no names, Mr. Sheffield), he doesn’t seem to be forcing his humor, it comes in naturally and doesn’t detract from nor take over the piece.

What can they do to get back in good favor with the music loving public? First and foremost, it has to decide what it wants to be, whether it’s a pop rag aimed at the Youtube kids, or a magazine that covers serious musicians and cuts out the bubblegum crap. It seems to be taking small steps toward the later, with a new, stripped down redesign, that or they’re just trying to cut costs. Second, pay more attention to the up and coming music scenes. By the time they break a “new” artist, most of us have already made our minds up about them and moved on. Review more indie records. Don’t call someone a hot new artist when they’re on their third full length. And please, PLEASE, get back to making more interesting covers. They used to be a work of art. Now they’re as forgettable as a lot of the people that adorn them. Because as much as you’ve been doing wrong Rolling Stone, we don’t want you to leave. Really.


* When I say music fans, I don’t mean people who gobble up Nickelback records like McDonalds cheeseburgers. This is not for you.

Mannequins with nipples

Statuephilia, also called agalmatophilia, or Pygmalionism after the myth of Pygmalion, is an uncommon sexual fetish or paraphilia that involves sexual attraction to statues or dolls. In its literal sense it means sexual attraction to statues (usually but not exclusively nudes), but the objects of attraction may also be lifelike mannequins or dolls (Source: wikipedia).

So what does this have to do with me, or more importantly, this blog? The most obvious reason is the mannequin world’s recent fascination with putting rock hard nipples on their products. Now this just seems like a waste of perfectly good mannequin material to me. Just think of all the extra mannequins they could make if they just got rid of these things! How many women are passing by these things and saying “WOW! Look at the nipples on that thing! I think I’m going to go in and shop!” It’s true, at first glance, these plastic areolas seem to have no purpose whatsoever. Bu long after you pass it by, it stays in your mind. Not that you have a thing for mannequins, but because that little extra bit of plastic is oddly intriguing, just enough to get it to stick in your mind than their other, nippleless counterparts. Next thing you know, you’re back in the store buying whatever it is they were wearing. And a pretzel, because shopping is always better with a pretzel.

Over the span of its life, this little journal (I’ve just decided that the word ‘blog’ shall never be uttered again, ever) is an exercise in the effects of anatomically correct mannequins. At first glance, seemingly useless, but the more you think about it, the more stimulating and intriguing it becomes. This is not going to be one of those places where I complain about personal matters, delve into celebrity gossip or give you a rundown of the days minor news stories (by the way, have you SEEN Don Vitos’ mugshot? He looks like he just devoured a colony of underage Umpaloompas). There are more than enough sites that do that. My goal is to (hopefully) enlighten and entertain with the various things that make me me. There will be moments of sheer brilliance, followed by paragraphs of pure drivel and randomness. But if you remember our mannequin friends, we just might make it out of this with some sense of self worth. But probably not.